raising contention for first time at reconsideration stage is normally an “undesirable practice” that may "hinder! ] the decision-making process” and "raise! 1 the undesirable specter of piecemeal litigation” (quoting Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 105 (1990))
How later courts described this case
- raising contention for first time at reconsideration stage is normally an “undesirable practice” that may "hinder! ] the decision-making process” and "raise! 1 the undesirable specter of piecemeal litigation” (quoting Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 105 (1990))
- raising contention for first time at reconsidera tion stage is normally an “undesirable practice” that may “hinder[ ] the decision-making process” and “raise[ ] the undesirable specter of piecemeal litigation’ ”
- rules of statutory construction apply to construction of regulatory provisions (citing Smith v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516, 1523 (Fed.Cir. 1994))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
On June 17, 1997, the Court denied a request by a judge for en bane review. On July 28,1997, the appellant, through counsel, filed an unopposed motion for a 90-day extension of time until October 27, 1997, to file a motion for reconsideration. On October 27, 1997, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration.
It not appearing that review by the full Court is necessary either to address a question of exceptional importance to the administration of laws affecting veterans’ benefits or to secure or- maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions, it is
ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.